My New Website

Writing Effective Letters to Officials

One
of the most difficult things for those new to fighting laws that target
specific breeds of dogs or breed specific legislation (BSL) is expressing your
feelings to the law makers who have proposed it. There are some very important things to
remember when communicating with officials:

First and foremost, ALWAYS BE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL
in your communications with officials. I
cannot stress enough how very important this is. Do not be combative or argumentative,
regardless of the difference between your point of view and theirs. Our dogs are worth putting our personal
feelings aside in order to communicate effectively. The best way to shut down a debate and ensure
the other side tunes you out is to berate, belittle and be rude.

Stick to the facts. Try to avoid being emotional. It is a given that you love your dogs or you wouldn’t
be fighting for them. The simple truth
is, the officials do not care how much we love our dogs – they care about the
safety of their constituents and the community they were elected to
represent. To that end, the facts and statistics related to the
inefficiency of breed specific legislation, as well as the integral part that
irresponsible owners play in dog attacks are important facts to get across to
them.

I
have put together some talking points that you can use in conjunction with your
own words when writing letters or making presentations to officials. The talking points hit on important flaws of
breed specific legislation, and should give you a good groundwork to customize
and build your own arguments

**DO NOT use all the below
talking points in one letter. Pick and
choose two or three issues you feel are most important, or use the ideas below
to map out your own talking points. Hit
your points, and keep it short and sweet. Sending an official a letter that is more
than 2 pages long is a good guarantee it won’t be read.

TALKING POINTS

BSL has been proven ineffective
in reducing the number of dog bites in areas where it has been enacted. In fact, bite reports
tend to either stay the same or even trend upward after breed-specific
legislation is enacted in a particular city or region.

·

In the Netherlands (which banned “pit bulls” in 1993),
dog bites continued to rise after the ban was enacted. The law was repealed in 2008 because,
according to the Agriculture Minister Gerda Verburg, it did not lead to a
reduction in the number of biting incidents. In its place, Verburg
introduced a measure that judged dogs on their behavior, not their breed.

In
Ireland, the incidence of dog bites has risen by more than 50 percent since
eleven breeds were banned from the country in 1998.

The United Kingdom passed the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991,
which banned 4 types of dogs. A
report issued in 2008 showed that dog bites increased by 50% between 1997
and 2007. Moreover, 30 people have
died in dog-related incidents, with 21 involving dogs of breeds/types not prohibited by the law. In fact, dog
bites continue to rise every year. The
2008 study also highlighted that London residents reported an increase in
aggressive dogs, with 40% saying that pet owners don’t take adequate
responsibility for their dogs.

In April 2009, Italy repealed its law banning several
breeds of dogs. The Health
Undersecretary stated in an interview: This is a historic day
because we have established for the first time the responsibility of the
owner [in charge of the animal]. The measures adopted in the previous laws had no scientific foundation. Dangerous breeds do not exist. With
this law we have overcome the black list, which was just a fig leaf over
the larger problem."

Denver, Colorado banned “pit bulls” in 1989. Between 1995 and 2006, Denver had
almost six times as many dog-related hospitalizations compared to Boulder,
even though Denver’s population is less than twice that of Boulder. During that 12-year period, Denver
experienced 273 dog-related hospitalizations, while Boulder experienced
only 46, according to statistics provided by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment.
Boulder does not have a breed
specific ordinance. “Do dog breed bans work?” Peter Marcus,
Denver Daily News, 3/3/09

Prince George’s Co., MD banned “pit bulls” in
1996. A task force charged with
accessing the law found that “the public safety benefit [of the ban] is
unmeasurable.”

Unreliable “Statistics.” According to the American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA), it is not
possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between
breeds because the data reported is often unreliable. This is because:

1. The breed of a biting dog is often not known or is
reported inaccurately.

2. The actual number of bites that occur in a community is
not known, especially if they don't result in serious injury.

3. The number of dogs of a particular breed or combination
of breeds in a community is not known because it is rare for all dogs in a
community to be licensed.

4. Statistics often do not consider multiple incidents
caused by a single animal.

5. Breed popularity changes over time, making comparison
of breed-specific bite rates unreliable. However a
review of the research that attempts to quantify the relation between
breed and bite risk finds the connection to be weak or absent, while
responsible ownership variables such as socialization, neutering and
proper containment of dogs are much more strongly indicated as important
risk factors.

Breed Identification. Another important flaw with breed specific
laws is breed identification. With
respect to “pit bull bans” specifically, it is extremely important to note that
“pit bull” is not a breed of dog but, rather, a generic term used to describe a
grouping of dogs with similar physical traits or characteristics. There are several breeds that possess the physical
characteristics of pit bull type dogs.
The “Find the Pit Bull” game is an excellent tool to demonstrate the difficulty
in identifying “pit bulls.”

·- Most
animal control and/or law enforcement officers are not able to identify
specific breeds of dogs with any degree of accuracy because the commonly stated
physical characterizes are similar in many breeds.

· - Because
breed identification by animal control officers is subjective (in other words,
the individual opinion of the person making the identification)it opens a city
to liability and litigation issues in the event of mistaken breed identification.

Breed specific legislation is opposed by several professional organizations.

American Dog Owners Association (ADOA)

American Humane

American Kennel Club (AKC)

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (ASPCA)

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

American Working Dog Federation (AWDF)

Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT)

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

International Association of Animal Behavior
Consultants (IAABC)

International Association of Canine Professionals
(IACP)

National
Animal Control Association (NACA)

National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)

National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors
(NADOI)

In 2013, the Obama administration issued a statement in
response to a petition against breed specific legislation. The full statement is as follows:

We don’t support
breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs
are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.

In 2000, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about
dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal
attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and
that it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds.

The CDC also
noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren’t deterred by
breed regulations — when their communities establish a ban, these people just
seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed
can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be
aggressive.

For all those
reasons, the CDC officially recommends against breed-specific legislation —
which they call inappropriate. You can read more from them here.

As an
alternative to breed-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based
approach to prevent dog bites. And ultimately, we think that’s a much more
promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners.

Failure to Address Irresponsible Owners. Perhaps the most compelling argument with respect
to why breed specific legislation fails is that it simply does not address the
issue of irresponsible, reckless and/or careless dog ownership. BSL places all the blame on the dogs and
removes the responsibility from the dog owner.
Dog ownership is a responsibility, and dog owners must be held
accountable for the actions of their dogs.

· "Problem
dogs” are the result of “problem dog owners,” and implementing a law that
ignores the root of the problem leaves the community at risk.

·Restricting
breeds of dogs does not address the real issue of irresponsible owners.Only when such owners are held accountable
for the actions of their dogs, will adverse dog incidents be reduced.

·Because
breed specific legislation fails to address irresponsible and reckless dog
owners, many areas that have enacted breed regulations have actually experienced
an increase in dog bite/attack incidents of the dog breeds NOT covered by the
breed specific law.

·Only
when you see more owners committed to providing the proper training, care,
socialization and supervision for their dogs, will dog bite incidents be
reduced significantly.

·Owners
should be held accountable in the judicial system for the actions of their dogs,
not the other way around.Only then will
we see owners committed by providing the proper training, care, socialization
and supervision that every dog requires – regardless of breed.

General Talking Points:

Any legislation
that targets specific breeds of dogs in ineffective, costly to the community,
and a poor alternative to a strong, breed-neutral dangerous dog ordinance which
encompasses all breeds, and places irresponsible dog owners accountable for the
actions of their dogs.

Restricting
breeds of dogs does little, if anything, to protect citizens in the
community. Moreover, breed bans perpetuate
the myth that certain breeds are inherently “bad.” It also indemnifies all of the unnamed breeds
as being “safe” by exclusion. In doing
so, breed specific legislation promotes a false sense of security for the
public.

The lack of
enforcement of existing laws is the primary contributing factor to dog bites –
not specific breeds of dogs. Every area
should have strictly enforced leash laws since dogs at large are the primary
source of the problem.

It has been
found that breed restrictions are, by far and large, unenforceable, and
unfairly penalize responsible dog owners who properly train, socialize, care
for and supervise their dogs.

Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather
than enhance public safety. When limited animal control resources are used to
regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus
is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the
best chance of making our communities safer, such as dog license laws, leash
laws, anti-tethering laws, laws that require all owners to control their dogs,
regardless of breed, laws preventing animal abuse, and programs easing/assisting spaying and
neutering.

An effective
solution is not to make more laws that punish responsible owners and entire
breeds, but to enforce existing leash laws and enact generic dangerous dog laws
that are not breed specific and punish irresponsible dog owners.

Effective alternatives to BSL

Responsible dog ownership is the most effective way to reduce the number of
dog bites and attacks. To encourage responsible ownership, legislation should
focus on:

Education: Education is the key to preventing dog
attacks and promoting safer interactions between humans and dogs. Research
shows that just 1 hour of dog safety training in grades 2 and 3 can reduce
these attacks by 80%. The city of Calgary, Canada, which has by far the most
effective animal control ordinance (with the statistics to prove it), spends a
considerable amount of money, time and effort on dog safety public awareness
and education campaigns.

Leash laws: Enact, strengthen and enforce leash
laws. Owners are responsible for containing their animals, and far too many
times, existing leash laws are simply ignored. Quite frankly, if a community
cannot enforce the simplest of laws such as a leash law (where there is no
question as to whether a dog is or is not on a leash), how can they possibly
expect to enforce a breed ban, wherein animal control officers will be forced
to question what breed a dog may or may not be?

Hold owners accountable: Strengthen and enforce
penalties for irresponsible dog owners. Rather than create dangerous dog laws,
we should instead focus on “dangerous owner” laws. Problem dogs are the result
of irresponsible, negligent and careless owners, and greater focus on the cause
of the problem will result in a community that experiences less issues with
both “dangerous owners” and their dogs.

Generic dangerous dog laws which address the
underlying cause of most dog-related deaths and injuries – irresponsible dog
ownership – are a key point in preventing dog related incidents in the
community. Good dangerous dog laws place the owner in the position of ensuring
that their dog(s) comply with all state and local requirements. Fines for
violations can vary, but the leading principle is that dog ownership should be
more costly to the irresponsible individuals.

Strengthen animal abuse and dog fighting laws. Dogs
can become aggressive as the result of cruelty, abuse, neglect and/or otherwise
improper care, and proper attention needs to be focused on the owners who
inflict these living conditions on their dogs.

Regulate Dog Breeders. Breeders play an important
role in the temperament of the dogs they produce and sell. Irresponsible
breeding plays a very important role as the mating of two dogs with poor and/or
unacceptable temperaments will no doubt result in puppies with unstable
temperaments. Moreover, if irresponsible breeders do not screen the individuals
they sell their dogs to, you have the potential combination of ill-breed dogs
in the hands of irresponsible owners. A disaster in the making.

Provide low cost spay/neuter options for
communities. Unneutered dogs, particularly males, are far more likely to attack
a human than either neutered males or spayed females. In analyzing over 448 dog
attack cases, Karen Delise, author of Fatal Dog Attacks, determined that
overwhelmingly, most dogs involved in the attacks were unneutered male dogs
that were maintained for reasons other than to be household companions (i.e.,
yard dogs). Providing lost cost options for the healthcare of dogs, including
spay and neuter services, is an excellent way to help dog owners better care
for dogs and take more interest in their dog’s healthcare and well-being.

General
Letter Writing Tips:

·Send
your letter as soon as you hear about a proposed law.

·It
is not necessary to type your letter.In
fact, a handwritten letter has a tremendous impact (as long as its
legible!)

· Be
brief and to the point.Try to limit
your letter to one or two subjects.Include all ordinance/bill titles and numbers whenever possible.

LETTER WRITING
101

If you still
have trouble putting together your own letter, below is a sample letter to use
as a guideline when writing to officials.
This is simply suggested language that can (and should be) modified to
fit the situation at hand. I do
encourage you to customize your own letter by combining some of the above
points and your own words, as well.

I am writing to you about the proposal that was brought up at the Town Board
meeting on April 3, 2018 with respect to banning “pit bulls” from the Town of
Doyle.Passing this type of ordinance
will have a negative impact on the responsible, law abiding dog owners of Doyle,
while those who do not abide by the law will simply continue to do so. The root cause of “problem dogs” is “problem
dog owners,” and any law that restricts the ownership of dogs based solely on
their breed does nothing to promote community safety. I am strongly opposed to this ordinance, and I
ask that you vote against it for the following reasons:

[INSERT TALKING POINTS HERE]

A much better and effective alternative to breed-specific legislation is to support reasonable,
enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs and to
hold irresponsible dog owners to a higher accountability.

I ask that the Board decline consideration of this proposal because any law
that targets specific breeds of dogs in an effort to enforce animal control does
not address the real problem:irresponsible and careless dog owners.

Respectfully,

Hey, over here! I may not be the main content section, but I'm equally as important. Sidebars are perfect locations to include contact information, hours of operation, or navigational links. Put important information here that you want your visitors to see, but not necessarily focus on.

Although your footer is usually under the fold, you can put some useful information and add-ons in here. Try putting your page copyright to mark your territory on your intellectual property, contact information, and maybe even a page visitor counter all in the footer.